> On the other hand the following scientific facts from 2000 scientists, architects and engineers have never varied. The facts never change.
_______________________________________________________________
> WTC Building #7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibited all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives:
> 1. Rapid onset of collapse
It was six seconds from the time the collapse started inside the building, under the east penthouse, until the exterior shell began to fall. That is NOT "rapid onset" OR a characteristic of a controlled demolition, so Gage persists in deliberately ignoring it.
> 2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor – a second before the building's destruction
That's just a bald-faced lie. With 100% certainty, there was nothing even remotely near the sounds of enough high-explosives "a second before the building's destruction" to take down a building the size of WTC7. As I pointed out in the other thread -- which you apparently prefer to ignore while serving up Gage's bullshit list of "scientific facts" -- there also weren't any seismic spikes or windows broken by any explosive shock wave. Are you really so inculcated into Gage's cult that you can't see that the collapse is completely missing some UNAVOIDABLE characteristics of a "classic controlled demolition?" Suit yourself, but it remains the primary reason that rational people don't (and never will) take this "classic controlled demolition" nonsense seriously.
> 3. Symmetrical "structural failure" – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall acceleration
It wasn't symmetric at all INSIDE the building, and if Cole can't figure out why the rigid exterior walls held together and fell in one piece after the interior columns collapsed, then he should demand a refund on his civil engineering degree. He also seems to be baffled that the force of gravity is ALWAYS downward, controlled demolition or not, or that broken columns provide zero resistance regardless of how they got broken, so it's quite possible that he made an unfortunate career choice; one for which he has no aptitude. And like the other "2000 scientists, architects and engineers" Cole seems to have no explanation for why eight floors were blown out 1.75 seconds AFTER the entire building was irrevocably headed down, which itself was six seconds after the collapse actually started internally, so the free-fall period referred to doesn't really resemble a "classic controlled demolition" either.
> 4. Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint
> 5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
Completely irrelevant. Gage lists them as if they are characteristics of a demolition that couldn't happen in a natural collapse, which is utter nonsense.
> 6. Expert corroboration from the top European controlled demolition professional
This is a classic example of why "appeal to authority" is a logical fallacy: The entirety of Jowenko's opinion is based on simply watching the same videos we've all seen of the top third falling and Jowenko's personal inability to explain it as anything but a controlled demolition. In other words, his "professional" opinion is based on the same fallacy as all the unprofessional ones: If it looks like a CD, then it must be a CD. In the end, it doesn't matter who believes what, but rather why they believe it. If Jowenko wants to offer that fallacious reasoning despite the fact it didn't sound anything like a CD or produce any other evidence of any destructive shock waves, then he brands himself a fool, not an expert.
> 7. Foreknowledge of "collapse" by media, NYPD, FDNY
... which was based on the very thing that Gage denies: The building was observed to be in distress well before the collapse.
> In the the aftermath of WTC7's destruction, strong evidence of demolition using incendiary devices was discovered:
> 8. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
... which happened at around 1000 degrees C, well within the temperatures of an office fire, so it is decidedly NOT evidence of Gage's imaginary "demolition using incendiary devices." (Since no such building demolition is known to ever have happened in the real world, Gage's notions of what ought to happen are necessarily imaginary, but putting that eutectic reaction on his list is absurd.)
> 9. Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly qualified witnesses
The only evidence of any such thing are these anecdotal reports: There's not a single example of a sample that can be tested, and not a single instance of the metal in these reports being tested. But since "molten metal" should be expected in an office fire if the metal is aluminum, then these reports are NOT the evidence of "demolition using incendiary devices" that Gage claims.
> 10. Chemical signature of the incendiary thermite found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples
Total bullshit. Thermite is just aluminum and iron oxide, both of which are abundant in office buildings. If this is supposed to be a reference to the paint chips that Harrit and Jones claim are "supernanothermite," sorry, but those have been identified as paint chips from the steel joists. If this is intended to be a reference to the iron microspheres, there is no reason to think they were produced during the collapse, and in fact there were lots of sources including the fly ash that was used in the lightweight concrete.
> WTC7 exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:
> 1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
As mentioned above, this is just a bald-faced lie. The onset WAS slow and there WAS a large deformation at the corner of several floors early in the afternoon, which is one of the reasons the firemen knew the building was unstable. (Another reason was the creaking and groaning noises that we now know were the girders sliding around on their seats due to thermal expansion.)
> 2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
But again, that's exactly what happened: The building fell to the south. Anyone who claims the building should have fallen over like a tree, however, simply doesn't understand the physics involved.
> 3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
Structural steel loses about half its strength at 600 degrees C and if Gage believes the fire didn't get at least that hot then I think he should be the one presenting evidence. But that claim also completely misses the NIST explanation for the collapse of WTC7, anyway, which was not based on steel weakening.
> 4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never collapsed.
As I mentioned in the other thread, Gage & Co. don't seem to think that the WTC7 construction details make any difference, and there's the proof. They are mistaken, and anyone who actually comprehends the NIST theory should be able to see why.
> As seen in this revealing photo, the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:
<similar list of faulty observations, imaginary physics, and bald-faced lies about the towers snipped>
This stuff has been discussed so many times over the years that I was able to address each of those items above off the top of my head, but a little objective research would turn up lots more that could be said about many of those items. The fact is that Gage & Co. have failed to produce any credible evidence or technical arguments either for a controlled demolition or against the NIST theory. Instead, we get dishonest propaganda crap like these "characteristics" lists and Gage's running count of how many people have fallen for it.
Gage wants to be at the top of your charities list.
= new reply since forum marked as read
